Legally, the updated GPL release license terms are GPL-compatible (as was the original GPL release), so bundling the GPL with a statement that Eidos/Pumpkin are copyright holders is enough. The main difference of the updated terms is that the new videos are also GPL-licensed, but since we already bundle the GPL, legally, we don't need to change any license files while adding the new videos to our distribution.

Morally, we have the original license fairly prominent on our website (at least, I think it is), so it's not like the originals are getting lost or something. Feel free to make whatever other changes you feel are necessary, but note that the way we currently have it is perfectly legal (and significantly less confusing for anyone who wants to redistribute Warzone).

Gentleman, I was not entirely clear on what was stated so I asked for clarification.

The question did not strike me as strange.

As for what might be interpreted as "insinuation" ... I merely want to be absolutely clear on what the official position is before I proceed with any expression of response which to me is to commit an act because words can have powerful consequences.

To put my initial perception, & interpretation, tersely & devoid of emotional colorations, I do not agree on several grounds - morally, within a pure reasoning framework or legally.

That said, I think, is enough till you all figure-out your official project stance going forward, then at such a time it would make sense for me to respond in more detail to that end position.

If you think I should speak in more detail before you frame a final decision - then I can do that.

Rman Virgil wrote:If you think I should speak in more detail before you frame a final decision - then I can do that.

Zarel wrote:Feel free - you know I always value your input.

K. Give me a day or two and I will.

This is a sensitive, complex, issue.

I wanna address it to the best of my ability (with a clear justice to all aspects & all stake-holders) in one coherent shot.

To do this I need more time than usual as I am currently engrossed in other, formative, commitments in so called RL (& it kinda feels like moving between parallel worlds to me here. Worlds with much in common but much that is radically different too; nuanced differences that are crux & easily over-looked if I make the transition in a quick nonchalant way.).

Let me pivot by offering a concise analogy that speaks simultaneously to the 3 grounds upon which I disagree with the course of action followed here vis-a-vis not including the document of this thread with every game distro and instead just having it posted in this forum and considering that as being sufficient to the copyright holders complete GPL license terms and the primary source factual history of the game.

Let me posit this analogical framework:

~ WZ 2100 = US History

~ The stock GPL in the distro = the US Constitution

~ The GPL Exception + WZ History of the README Doc of this thread = the 27 Amendments to the Constitution & their history.

To widely distribute this US History with the US Constitution text but NOT include the 27 Amendments would be an egregious mistake on grounds moral, common sense reason & legal.

Obviously the foregoing is an effort at an elegant argument to demonstrate my position sans emotion. However, I have also striven in my compression to be mindful of NOT, inadvertently, committing any fallacies..

Be that last as it may, perhaps this post may serve, at the very least, as a constructive reference point going forward with a discussion shaped by cogent reasoning towards a resolution of the issue raised that does indeed do justice to all aspects and stakeholders (past, present & future).

Not including the COPYING.README file with the new license text in the Windows build was an inadvertent error, and will be fixed in the next Windows build.

However, as was pointed out when the GPL exceptions that the now defunct other project asked for was initially discussed, we can neither use nor offer these exceptions for our own code. This is because we started off with the original GPL license without any exceptions, and have not (and most likely could not, since some early copyright holders could no longer be reached) relicense the early code changes. This means that anyone who uses this project's code cannot use the GPL exceptions as described in the above mentioned document. They can, of course, go back to the original code and use that instead, and then get the exceptions.

Per wrote:Not including the COPYING.README file with the new license text in the Windows build was an inadvertent error, and will be fixed in the next Windows build.

However, as was pointed out when the GPL exceptions that the now defunct other project asked for was initially discussed, we can neither use nor offer these exceptions for our own code. This is because we started off with the original GPL license without any exceptions, and have not (and most likely could not, since some early copyright holders could no longer be reached) relicense the early code changes. This means that anyone who uses this project's code cannot use the GPL exceptions as described in the above mentioned document. They can, of course, go back to the original code and use that instead, and then get the exceptions.